This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the FAQ and RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate and remove the ads - it's free!

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by Wiseone

Also you can do accompanied tours to Korea now, they've got all kinds of extra family size houses of there after the post 9/11 draw down. Not that it has anything to do with the issue here, but just FYI.

You can't have dependents, if you're posted to a forward camp. You know that, right?

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by roguenuke

It is. You just don't see it.

You're right. I enver saw it, in 12 years.

So are you going to answer my questions? If you weren't taught that gays serving openly might be detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and discipline, then where did you get your beliefs? Do you believe that gays serving openly might be detrimental to morale, unit cohesion and discipline or do you have some other reason to oppose gays serving openly?

Why don't you take a shot at telling me what you think my beliefs are?

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by apdst

You can't have dependents, if you're posted to a forward camp. You know that, right?

I may be confused on terminology then. For example I'm being deployed to Camp Stanley just north of Seoul, where you can bring dependents. Its pretty "forward" and very close to the DMZ. But is there a specific type of camp or military post dubbed a "forward post" because to me being forward just means close to the DMZ.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

That is exactly what you just did. You are so selective in your thinking regarding this issue that it is sad. A gay soldier cannot openly date, marry, or start a family the entire time they are in the service or they will get kicked out.

How did you reply to that argument? Oh, well some straight soldiers have to be away from their families for a year!

It seems that you are perfectly fine with the idea that gay soldiers have to choose between starting a family and serving their country.

And, I've said time-n-again, that gays should be able to serve in the military, without fear of being disciplined for leading that lifestyle.

Why are you folks so narrow minded?

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by apdst

You're right. I enver saw it, in 12 years.

Why don't you take a shot at telling me what you think my beliefs are?

Judging solely on your posts from the last week or so on threads on the repeal of DADT, then I would say that you are for keeping DADT and not allowing gays to serve openly, which are the same thing, no matter how you wish to say they aren't.

If I am wrong, then prove it. State your stand on gays in the military. Exactly how you feel about allowing gays to serve openly.

This won't change my stance that many, if not most, that believe that gays serving openly will be detrimental to unit cohesion and morale and discipline were taught this, but it will give me a better idea of how you feel.

"A woman is like a teabag, you never know how strong she is until she gets in hot water." - Eleanor Roosevelt

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by Wiseone

I may be confused on terminology then. For example I'm being deployed to Camp Stanley just north of Seoul, where you can bring dependents. Its pretty "forward" and very close to the DMZ. But is there a specific type of camp or military post dubbed a "forward post" because to me being forward just means close to the DMZ.

I'm talking about the, "stand alone", camps. I was at Camp Greaves, out to the northwest of Seoul; where there were no dependent services available.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by roguenuke

Judging solely on your posts from the last week or so on threads on the repeal of DADT, then I would say that you are for keeping DADT and not allowing gays to serve openly, which are the same thing, no matter how you wish to say they aren't.

If I am wrong, then prove it. State your stand on gays in the military. Exactly how you feel about allowing gays to serve openly.

This won't change my stance that many, if not most, that believe that gays serving openly will be detrimental to unit cohesion and morale and discipline were taught this, but it will give me a better idea of how you feel.

Then, I would say that you're sleep posting. No point in talking to you on the subject.

Seriously. Have you read any of my posts? Obviously, not.

I've already stated my stand on gays in the military, a bazillion-million times. You're one of those folks that sees what you wanna see, and nevermind reality.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Okay, you want gays to be able to serve openly. Thank you. Case closed.

Well, you're close. I want to see the ban lifted and DADT to remain in place, so as to avoid discrimination. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest of gay soldiers for DADT to remain in place.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

Re: Ending US military gay ban 'won't harm war effort'

Originally Posted by CriticalThought

Okay, you want gays to be able to serve openly. Thank you. Case closed.

Well, you're close. I want to see the ban lifted and DADT to remain in place, so as to avoid discrimination. Personally, I think it would be in the best interest of gay soldiers for DADT to remain in place.

Originally Posted by Top Cat

At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.